A Forum for Orthodox Jewish thought on Halacha, Hashkafa, and the social issues of our time.

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Of Shells and Modesty

The late R'n Esther Jungreis - always fashionable yet modest

I am a little uncomfortable talking about women’s fashions in
the context of modesty. But that has never stopped me before. After reading a series of articles in the Forward I
thought I may as well throw in my own 2 cents. So here goes.

I have to disagree with Michelle Honig. She writes in a
Forward article about the current trend among Orthodox women to wear what is called a ‘shell’. This is
a piece of clothing that is generally skin tight, and covers up the arm to at least three-quarter
length and whose neckline is in accordance with Orthodox Jewish standards of
modesty.

Wearing this piece of clothing allows observant women to buy just
about any style of clothing they wish, no longer having to worry about whether
it covers up enough of the body to meet Halachic modesty standards. Fashionable
sleeveless dresses low plunging necklines are now an option if worn over one of
these shells.

Ms Honig hates this trend. Here is how she puts it:

(It’s) impossible to look good in a shell. It’s not stylish,
it’s not flattering and it cheapens every look. It’s rarely, if ever, used with
intention, beyond the intention of making something modest. It’s a lazy
approach to dressing, where creativity in dressing falls by the wayside.

Wearing a shell makes dressing modestly a mechanical,
mindless process, and sucks the joy out of getting dressed.

OK. I will give her the fact that shells are rarely used
as a fashion statement. But that is where my agreement ends. Shells are used to conform to Halacha. My wife and
three daughters all use shells. The ‘layered’ look that these shells present
does not really make them all that less
fashionable. At least to my untrained eye.
Or to any ‘eye’ that is not focused on the minutia of fashion. All it does is
make them more modest and in compliance with Halacha... and often very attractive and yet modest at the same time

Emily Schneider responded to Ms. Honig in her own Forwardarticle. Here in part is what she said:

Why would restrictions imposed by men be necessary in order
for women to dress creatively? What legitimacy, in fact, do such restrictions
hold?

By critiquing minor aspects of tznius, like shells, women
may claim to have a degree of control over their bodies and how they choose to
cover them. Yet adhering to normative modesty codes, by definition, cedes this
control.

Any alleged “creativity” involved in selecting an outfit
which will not offend or disturb Jewish men is a sad and minimal compensation.
Mild complaints about minute details only grant tacit legitimacy to this system…

However a woman chooses to adhere to modesty, shells or not,
the rules she complies with are predicated on male anxiety about women’s bodies
and the potentially dangerous responses which the sight of women’s bodies may
provoke.

Ms. Schneider says that women are dominated by a patriarchal
society that fears its own illicit thoughts – thereby imposing unfair restrictions upon the way women dress – thus limiting
women’s freedom.

What Ms. Shneider seems to ignore is that fact that those
fears are quite real. A holy society ought to avoid instances that
lead to erotic thoughts in men. And it is no secret that men react to the visual. Exposure of female skin often generate erotic thoughts in men. The more skin exposred the more
likeihood of those thoughts..

No one has explained this better than Penina Taylor. She
responded in her own Forward article to both Honig and Schneider:

The opinion that Schneider expressed in her piece, that
dressing modestly is a set of restrictions imposed on women by men, is closely
related to a commonly held but completely false premise – the idea that
exposing one’s body is an expression of empowerment and covering one’s body is
a result of male oppression of women.

Of course, in order to come to this conclusion, one must
overlook the fact that Western women’s fashion has pretty much always been
dictated by men, and has always attempted to expose, or highlight, women’s
bodies to a greater degree than men…

From very early on, women have been convinced (read: sold a
bill of goods) that flaunting all is an exercise of freedom. That covering
one’s body is an indication of shame, and that “if you’ve got it, flaunt it”,
and anything else is a sign of oppression or domination.

Psychologists and neuroscientists have long explained that
there is a fundamental difference between the way men’s brains are wired and
women’s brains are wired when it comes to sexual arousal. Keeping religion
entirely out of the picture, it has been proven that men are primarily aroused
by visual input whereas women are primarily aroused by touch. That’s not
religion. That’s science.

With this in mind, we can better understand the reasons for
modesty laws. This is not to say that men don’t have their own responsibility
in this regard. They do. It is incumbent upon men to avoid those circumstances
that will lead to erotic thoughts. But that does not mean that women should be free
to expose as much skin as they want any time and any place they want. There are common sense reasons for modesty. As
a society we should all try and do what we can to be a holy nation.

For men that means avoiding scenarios that induce erotic
thoughts. For women it means dressing modestly in order to minimize those
thoughts in their encounters with men. But
being modest need not mean avoiding fashionable clothing. Which brings me back
to shells. I believe shells have been a tremendous aid in keeping us a ‘kingdom
of priests and holy nation’ and enabling women to dress as fashionable and modestly as they can.

Follow by Email

Followers

Recent Comments

About Me

My outlook on Judaism is based mostly on the teachings of my primary Rebbe, Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik from whom I received my rabbinic ordination. It is also based on a search for spiritual truth. Among the various sources that put me on the right path, two great philosophic works stand out: “Halakhic Man” and “Lonely Man of Faith” authored by the pre-eminent Jewish philosopher and theologian, Rabbi, Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Of great significance is Rabbi, Dr. Norman Lamm's conceptualization and models of Torah U’Mada and Dr. Eliezer Berkovits who introduced me to the world of philosophic thought. Among my early influences were two pioneers of American Elementary Torah Chinuch, Rabbis Shmuel Kaufman and Yaakov Levi. The Yeshivos I attended were Yeshivas Telshe for early high school and more significantly, the Hebrew Theological College where for a period of ten years, my Rebbeim included such great Rabbinic figures as Rabbis Mordechai Rogov, Shmaryahu Meltzer, Yaakov Perlow, Herzl Kaplan, and Selig Starr. I also attended Roosevelt University where I received my Bachelor's Degree - majoring in Psychology.